Author: Harut Sassounian

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s office surprisingly announced that he was going on a long vacation from July 15 to August 12. More shockingly, several other officials of Armenia had decided to go on vacation at the same time, leaving the country without its top leadership.

I would have had no concern if Pashinyan had gone on a one or even two-week long vacation. Everyone needs a break from time to time. But, the top leader of the country going on vacation for almost a month is incredible. I have not heard of the leader of any country in the world having gone on a 29-day vacation.

Besides the astonishing length of the absence of the Prime Minister from office, I have three other concerns:

1)    There seems to be no basic understanding that several of the country’s leaders cannot be absent from office at the same time. What if, God forbid, would a war break out or some other serious emergency occur? Normally, when the leader of any country is temporarily absent, his deputy performs his functions — not in Armenia. Several members of the Armenia media reported that the Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan, who is supposed to replace the Prime Minister during his absence, has also gone on vacation for nine days during the same period. Fortunately, there is a second Deputy Prime Minister who will fulfill the duties of Prime Minister. Furthermore, the Speaker of the Parliament, Alen Simonyan, decided to go on vacation for 20 days from July 16 to August 5. He will be replaced by Deputy Speaker Ruben Rubinyan (July 16-22) and Deputy Speaker Hakob Arshakyan (July 23-August 5). Also on vacation are Finance Minister Vahe Hovhannisyan (for 10 days) and Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan (until July 22).

2)    If the leaders of Switzerland were to be absent from their offices for days, weeks or even months, nothing untoward would happen, since the country is located in a peaceful part of the world. Regrettably, Armenia is located in a precarious region with constant threats from Azerbaijan. Armenia’s leaders have to be constantly on alert and work diligently to solve its myriad problems. Under these circumstances, their going on lengthy and simultaneous vacations is reckless and irresponsible.

3)    Finally, Pashinyan announced last month that Armenia is ready to sign a peace treaty with Azerbaijan in one month. Why would he then turn around and go on vacation for a month? Shouldn’t he be in his office, if, by a miracle, Pres. Aliyev agreed to sign such a treaty which I believe is not only useless, but also contrary to Armenia’s interests? Aliyev is cleverly stringing along the signing of a peace treaty to extort endless concessions from Armenia!

Even though the leadership’s wholesale absence entails a major risk for the country, many Armenians are not too concerned. On the contrary, they are happy that the leaders are away from office so they can do less damage to the country’s interests. Some members of the public are hoping that these leaders would remain on permanent vacation and not return to their positions.

Some of the readers feel that I am too critical of Pashinyan. While it is true that no one is perfect, starting from me, the Prime Minister goes to extensive lengths to make egregious errors and baseless statements which would have been laughable, if they did not have such serious consequences. Hundreds of such examples come to mind. Let us just mention the latest example when the Prime Minister along with his wife attended the UEFA’s Soccer championship game on July 14 in Berlin.

Pashinyan, obsessed with social media, regularly posts on Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Twitter (X), and YouTube, all of his speeches, meetings, and visits. Unlike other world leaders, he walks around with one or two cell phones in his hand.

During the soccer match in Berlin, he placed his cell phone in front of him and videotaped, not the match, but his own face, adding a bizarre song to the video by a 31-year-old female American singer known as Tinashe. Wikipedia described the song titled, “Nasty,” as “an understated R&B and rhythmic pop song on which Tinashe ‘rap-sings’ about searching for someone to match her sexual energy, which she alternately calls her ‘freak’ and her ‘nasty’, while also using several double entendres. The song has a ‘robotic’ hook and, in its second verse, she details a sexually charged date night, singing ‘Shotgun, my thighs on the seat, I ain’t got nothin’ underneath, Looks like you’re ’bout to spend the night, Looks like, I’m ’bout to change your life.’”

Why would the Prime Minister of Armenia add such an inappropriate song to his video that has “Nasty” lyrics, with the word “nasty’ repeated 59 times in the song?

Surprisingly, Pashinyan’s video along with the song, “Nasty,” was reported by TV channel 5 in Los Angeles. The headline of the segment on TV was: “Pashinyan & wife in Berlin at Euro Soccer Finals, Listening to ‘Nasty’ Song.” The TV channel asked: “What do the 2024 European Championship final, Tinashe and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan have in common?” My answer: Absolutely nothing!

Channel 5 reported that Pashinyan posted on TikTok a second video showing the victory celebration at the end of the soccer match, once again adding the song “Nasty.” The TV channel stated: “It is not known why he chose the one-time Crescenta Valley High School student’s song as the background music for the two videos. It is also not known how exactly he found the song in the first place.”

It is almost impossible to explain the Prime Minister’s actions and motives. Maybe, he is looking for a Hollywood gig after he is no longer Prime Minister.

The Gallup International poll conducted in Armenia on July 3-6, 2024, indicated that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s rating has dropped to 13.4% among potential Armenian voters. When he first came to power six years ago, his rating was around 80%.

When asked: “How do you evaluate the work of Nikol Pashinyan?”

— 13.4% of the public said that they find his work “completely positive.” This is 4% higher than two months ago in May.

— 21.7% evaluated his work in July as “rather positive,” up 3% from May.

— 40.3% rated his work in July as “generally negative,” 1% lower than May.

— 14.5% rated him in July as “rather negative,” 4% lower than May.

— 10.1% of the participants said the question was too “difficult to answer.”

This means that 35.1% of the public rated Pashinyan in July as “positive” and “rather positive,” up from 27.8% in May, whereas the majority of 54.8% rated him “negatively” and “rather negatively” in July, down from 59.7% in May.

To the question: “If the parliamentary elections were held next Sunday which party or coalition of parties would you vote for?” Here are their answers:

1)  14.4% for the ruling Civil Contract party.

2)  3.7% for the Armenia coalition.

3)  3.5% for the Democracy, Law and Order party.

4)  2.3% for I Have Honor coalition.

5)  1.5% for Bakrat Srpazan.

6)  1.2% for the Prosperous Armenia party.

7)  0.6% for the Republic party.

8)  2% for others.

9)  8.6% for none of them.

10)  29.6% refused to answer or had difficulty answering.

11)  32.5% will not vote at all.

These numbers provide an important insight into the next election. Pashinyan’s ruling party will only get 14.4%, while the other parties, if they form a coalition, will get 14.8% of the vote. For the opposition parties to become the majority in the next Parliament, they need not only to form a coalition, but also try to get votes from the remaining 70.7% who refused to answer or had difficulty answering or will not be voting.

Regarding the question: “Is Armenia in general moving in the right or wrong direction?” The respondents answered:

— 15.2% “completely right.”

— 10.6% “rather right.”

— 28.5% “generally wrong.”

— 23.1% “rather wrong.”

— 22.5% “have difficulty answering.”

This means that the majority of 51.6% feel that the country is going in the wrong direction. Only 25.8% feel it is going in the right direction. This does not bode well for Pashinyan and his ruling party.

To the question, should Armenia change its Constitution as Pres. Aliyev had demanded? The public responded:

— 80.3% said no in July, more than double the 38.1% in January.

— 11.7% said in July that certain clauses should be changed. In January, 34.2% had said the same thing.

— 3.3% said in July that a whole new Constitution is necessary. In January, 13.4% said the same thing.

— 4.7% could not answer in July. In January, 14.4% could not.

This is a critical issue, since Pashinyan has agreed with Aliyev to change the Constitution, while 80.3% of the public is opposed to it.

To the question: “How do you evaluate the movement of “Tavush for the sake of Armenia” initiated by the Primate of Tavush, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan?” The public said:

— 18.3% “completely positive” in July, which is substantially down from 35.1% in May.

— 15.5% “rather positive” in July, slightly lower than the 17.8% in May.

— 32.4% “generally negative” in July, which is higher than the 23.5% in May.

— 14.9% “rather negative” in July, a little higher than the 10% in May.

— 18.9% could not answer in July. In May, 13.6%.

The answers indicate a declining trend in the Armenian public’s support for the Archbishop’s movement.

To the question: “According to you, should Armenia become a member of the European Union (EU)?”

— 34.2% said, “definitely yes.”

— 22.5% said, “rather yes.”

— 19.1% said, “definitely no.”

— 13.7% said, “rather no.”

— 10.5% said, they “could not answer the question.”

This indicates that 56.7% are in favor of Armenia joining the EU, while 32.8% are opposed to it. The majority agrees with Pashinyan. I believe, this is an unrealistic wish on the part of the Armenian public and the Prime Minister, as most of Armenia’s economy is linked to Russia and any interruption in that critical link will have a devastating effect on Armenia’s economy. The pro-EU reaction is mostly due to the Armenian public’s major disappointment with Russia for not coming to the rescue of Armenia militarily. Another important issue is whether the EU will allow Armenia to join it. As we know, Turkey has been trying unsuccessfully to join the EU for decades and Georgia has also been trying to join the EU for years. There will be years’ long wait for Armenia.

A similar question was asked as to “whether Armenia should leave the [Russia-dominated] Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and start the process of joining the European Union?”

— 28.8% said, “definitely yes.”

— 17.3% said, “rather yes.”

— 21.4% said, “definitely no.”

— 15.6% said, “rather no.”

— 16.9% said, they “have difficulty answering the question.”

This indicates that 46.1% of the public is in favor of leaving the EEU, while 37% are opposed to leaving the EEU.

The next question: “Whether Armenia should leave the [Russia-affiliated] Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and join NATO?”

— 44.3% said in July, “Armenia should not be a member of any structure; should be neutral.” 40.3% had given the same answer in February.

— 16.9% said in July, “Armenia should continue its membership in CSTO.” 28% had given the same answer in February.

— 29% said in July, “we should aspire to join NATO.” 22.5% had given the same answer in February.

— 9.8% said in July, they “have difficulty answering the question.” 9.2% had given the same answer in February.

Not surprisingly, these answers indicate a declining trend in the Armenian public’s interest in being associated with anything related to Russia and an increasing interest in the West. However, wanting to join NATO is an unrealistic wish.

This latest poll indicates the Armenian public’s continued dissatisfaction with Pashinyan and his political party and the public’s interest in a shift away from Russia towards the West.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan last week continued to advocate for his policy of appeasement towards Azerbaijan, suggesting that Armenians rather enjoy their lives than engage in eternal struggles.

Addressing the leaders of his political party, Civil Contract, on June 23, Pashinyan rhetorically asked: “Can we perceive the state as a means to make the well-being of and happiness of the people living here possible and not as a springboard, an outpost, for some eternal struggle? …Is the Republic of Armenia an instrument of eternal struggle or is the Republic of Armenia an instrument of living?”

This is the rosy promise that Pashinyan made to the people to come to power in 2018. He deceived the Armenian public by pledging to bring them peace and higher income. We now see that he brought nothing but death and misery to the nation after sacrificing thousands of soldiers, the entire territory of Artsakh, and parts of the Republic of Armenia. Contradicting his own criticisms of the previous regimes for increasing the national debt, he more than doubled it by borrowing billions of dollars from international financial institutions, thus placing a huge burden on future Armenian generations. 

Pashinyan’s only accomplishment is creating a luxurious life for his own family by living in a government mansion, being driven in expensive cars, flying around the world in a luxurious government jet, and staying in five-star hotels in various capitals. In contrast, he came to the office on a bicycle six years ago.

In his June 23 remarks, Pashinyan fabricated two non-existent ‘challenges and threats’ that supposedly face the Armenian nations. He said:

1) “There are large countries, international big players, who tell us: ‘ …You are not really a living people; you are a suffering people. You have to suffer, you have to migrate, be slaughtered, have to struggle, and through all that, come and beg for salvation from me, and I have to come and save you.’”

2) Pashinyan said that the second challenge came from “Azerbaijan, especially Azerbaijan, whose words, to put it very briefly, are as follows: ‘You did not let me live for 30 years, I won’t let you live either, and I will take revenge on you.’”

Pashinyan provided in the above two defeatist statements the best evidence that he is not a competent leader which necessitates his immediate resignation, before he destroys the homeland.

First of all, no one in the world has said that Armenians must suffer. This is fake news. The only person that Armenians need to be saved from is Pashinyan. If Armenians want to continue their existence as a nation, they must replace Pashinyan as soon as possible with a more capable leader who could defend Armenia’s interests while ensuring the people’s proper living standards. These two goals are not mutually exclusive.

Secondly, why is Pashinyan acting as if he is the spokesman for Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev? Each time Pashinyan opens his mouth, one has distinct the impression that Aliyev is not sitting in Baku, but in Yerevan on the Armenian Prime Minister’s chair! Azerbaijanis did not suffer for 30 years. They lived perfectly well earning billions of dollars from exporting their oil and gas around the world, building multiple sky scrapers in Baku, and hosting prestigious international events and conferences. Even more astonishingly, since Pashinyan says that Aliyev is intent on seeking revenge from Armenia, why is he then begging Azerbaijan to sign a peace treaty? Will a piece of paper deter Aliyev from his fixation on seeking revenge from Armenia?

As if these absurd statements were not sufficient, Pashinyan spoke about “the reasons why ‘the opposition movement,’ led by Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, ‘has waned.’ Besides using outrageous lies to disparage the high-ranking clergyman, Pashinyan and his cohorts constantly repeat the fake notion that the opposition movement has failed. If the movement had really failed, why does Pashinyan keep talking about it? The truth is that Pashinyan and his followers are seriously worried about the Archbishop’s activities and his numerous followers. The regime’s concern is justified because for the first time in six years, one man has been able to unite the entire opposition field under one umbrella, something no one else has been able to accomplish until now!

By making such absurd statements, Pashinyan is simply trying to discourage his party members from giving up, like rats leaving a sinking ship. It is no secret that his followers in the Parliament and government are very worried about their jobs and incomes if the opposition succeeds in toppling the government. Furthermore, Pashinyan and his supporters seriously fear that they will be arrested and charged with corruption, abuse of power, violating the laws of the Republic of Armenia, and handing over Artsakh and the territories of the Republic of Armenia to Azerbaijan.

In recent days, Archbishop Galstanyan started to travel outside of Yerevan to gain supporters in other parts of the country. The Archbishop must form opposition groups in all villages and cities throughout Armenia to expand the movement beyond Yerevan, making it national in scope. The second benefit of spreading the protests throughout the country is to prevent Pashinyan from being able to bring thousands of policemen from all over the country to Yerevan to suppress the opposition protests. If there are simultaneous protests in all regions of Armenia on the same day, the police will be forced to remain in their local areas, thereby making it impossible for them to come to Yerevan in large numbers to attack the protesters.

Finally, since the opposition movement is also supported by Armenians in the Diaspora, the Archbishop must appoint his movement’s representatives in various countries so it becomes a pan-Armenian worldwide movement rather than being limited to just Yerevan or Armenia.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan met on June 19 with a group of Diaspora Armenians who worked as temporary staff members at various Ministries in Armenia.

During his remarks to the group, the Prime Minister deviated from the subject matter and made senseless statements about the Diaspora. He said that “… in a large part of our history, during the history of the Third Republic, the Diaspora has often or sometimes been viewed as an auxiliary institution to the administration of the Republic of Armenia. The change that is occurring is as follows: we say that the Diaspora cannot be an auxiliary institution to the administration of the Republic of Armenia because the Republic of Armenia, like any state, is an instrument with its clear mechanisms where it is very clearly described who and how is managing that mechanism. If there is no detail or larger whole in the architecture of that mechanism, we are trying to connect that whole to that mechanism; we are inhibiting the progress of that mechanism. This is obvious. And in this logic, I think that the change that is taking place is very important and very essential. But, on the other hand, I want to look at it with reverse logic as well. In many cases, the Republic of Armenia was also perceived as an auxiliary or non-auxiliary tool for the administration of the Diaspora. I want to say that, in my understanding, this also needs to end. Why? Because in case we make the Republic of Armenia an auxiliary or non-auxiliary tool, we are placing the Republic of Armenia outside the limits of its jurisdiction and, therefore, we make the Republic of Armenia more vulnerable. Our strategy, which I have talked about, the conceptual framework of ensuring the security of the Republic of Armenia, is legitimacy which is also related to this — that we can act only where we have jurisdiction and legitimacy to act. We cannot act where we don’t have jurisdiction and legitimacy to act as a state. And because of this circumstance, social-psychological changes will inevitably take place in Armenia-Diaspora relations as well. I described what should not be as we had pictured. I mean, I understand that there is a certain gap within what I said, but I am not ready today to even attempt to fill that gap because I don’t think that’s my job or at least only my job. That requires wider discussions, and there, the Republic of Armenia or officials of the Republic of Armenia can have a say, say something, but I think that these discussions are more public and informal level discussions about how should be the new relations between Armenia and the Diaspora. They are no longer like that and will not be like that. I think that is obvious….”

If you understood nothing from Pashinyan’s rambling words, you are not alone. The problem is that he always speaks without a prepared text causing him to stray from the subject and say things that he had not planned to say.

In his lengthy statement, Pashinyan tried to refute a thought that did not exist in anyone’s mind — that “the Diaspora is viewed as an auxiliary institution to the management of the Republic of Armenia.” No one had said that. We have always envisaged the Diaspora’s role as providing humanitarian aid, investments and professional expertise to the homeland.

On the positive side, I am glad Pashinyan acknowledged that Armenia has no jurisdiction to meddle in the internal affairs of the Diaspora. He has great difficulty managing the problems facing Armenia, let alone the issues of the Diaspora — something he knows nothing about.

Pashinyan then strayed into the subject of ‘how many Armenians are there in the world.’ He said: “…There is another problem. We do not always attach big significance to arithmetic. Recently, a question arose in my head. We keep saying, ‘10 million Armenians, 10 million Armenians, 10 million Armenians.’ Is there a list of these Armenians somewhere or not? I am convinced that there isn’t. Here again is the phenomenon of sanctification. That number is sacred, do not touch it suddenly. It neither increases nor decreases. You cannot change it. It’s 10 million! If someone says that ‘it’s not 10 million, it’s 10,561,000,’ everyone will attack him and say, ‘ignorant, dilettante. How do you know that? Who counted it, etc.?’ If someone says: ‘no, it’s 9,200,000,’ they will say, ‘you scoundrel, you are belittling the global influence of Armenians. With the stroke of a pen, you wiped out 800,000 Armenians.’ This is our reality. This is about us, but we have to talk about it. If we don’t talk about it, what is the use?”

The Prime Minister is wrong that no one knows the number of Armenians in the world. He could have checked Wikipedia under the topic of ‘Armenian population by country,’ which lists the approximate number of Armenians in each one of 107 countries. There are many other sources that give the number of Armenians in the world. Since no one has counted every single Armenian in the world, naturally, the 10 million is a rough estimate.

If this subject really interests the Prime Minister, he should direct his High Commissioner for Diaspora Affairs to conduct a worldwide survey and compile a more accurate number of Armenians in the world.

I also suggest that the Prime Minister’s aides write his speeches, so he can read from a written text and not stray into whatever comes to his head at the moment.